CCP 11-25-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" . . . Page 2 October 24, 2002 Plarming Case #02-26 Planninl! Commission Recommendation In Plarming Case #02-29, the Planning Commission recommends that the proposed Special Use Permit be approved subject to the following conditions: I. That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless stated here. Proposals of the applicant refer to the applicant's Description of Requests (attached to the back side of Page 5 of staff's October 30,2002 report to the Plarming Commission) and landscape plans attached to the application. 2. That all necessary building permits be secured from the Building Official. 3. That the number of handicapped accessible parking spaces complies with State Building Code requirements. 4. A plan of new signage to be erected shall be submitted for review and approval of the Council. 5. If a curb-cut is to be utilized on County Road E, that approval shall be obtained from Ramsey County. Staff Comments First, any new signage would be subject to the City of Arden Hills Signage Ordinance (which requires staff approval prior to the signage being erected.) Under the Signage Ordinance there are specific requirements for the maximum square feet allowed per a type of signage (i.e. wall, freestanding, auxiliary, etc.). It is staffs opinion that there are sufficient regulations in the Signage Ordinance that would insure that the any new signage would meet City requirements. Replacement of condition number four (4) with a requirement that any new signage shall comply with the Signage Ordinance and require staff approval, would provide the applicant with the same signage review process as most of the businesses operating in Arden Hills. Currently only businesses classified as Drive-In Businesses have a requirement that Council approve any new signage to be erected. At the current time the applicant has indicated that no new signage will be erected. The only signage would be changing-out the existing sign faces for new faces. Staff is operating under the assumption that since the previous use was a Claims Service Building with Drive-in/Drive-up service, that the proposed use should be allowed at the proposed location.